Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to protest in Rome’s Circus Maximus arena Saturday against a civil unions bill for same-sex couples, a hot-potato issue for Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s government.
Check out photos of the rally:
Seriously though, good for them!
I don’t really understand why they’re always framed as marches protecting the family. I understand that it makes it sound like a more positive movement, but it’s a bit ridiculous.
Those who oppose same-sex marriages/civil unions always call themselves “pro-family”, as if they’re trying to protect something rather than prevent something. Family structure really isn’t some kind of unchanging or natural phenomenon, as well.
Marriage, in the eyes of the Judeo/Christian faith is the binding together of one man and one woman. So, from their perspective they are most certainly trying to protect the family and marriage.
Those who oppose preserving life in the womb always call themselves “pro-choice”, as if they’re trying to protect something rather than prevent something. Family structure really** is** an unchanging, God given natural phenomenon, as well.
I will be praying for the people of Italy and their representatives.
I just wanted to point out, that the reason Italy is even voting on this at all is from pressure from the European Union:
[quote= article] Renzi has made legalizing same-sex civil unions a centerpiece of his legislative program, spurred in part by pressure from the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Union finds Italy’s position outdated. The European Union is the one that has a problem with Italy’s current position, not the Italian people. I just want to point this out and put it out there. The reason this vote is taking place is because of the European Union. Not from Italian politicians who decided to follow the will of the Italian people.
This is just another reason why the E.U. is terrible. It impedes national sovereignty.
Brussels is very liberal, and they’ve also had problems with Hungary’s pro-life, pro-God Constitution. The E.U. should be opposed by Catholics precisely because of things like this.
I agree. Thanks for your post.
This demonstrates ignorance of the EU and European politics more generally.
The European Court of Human Rights is NOT affiliated with or part of the EU:
**The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe and, accordingly, it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights**.
On 18 December 2014, the Court of Justice issued a negative opinion on the European Union’s accession to the ECHR as it would give an external body the power to review the application of EU law, thus bringing the accession to a halt
Even Russia is subject to rulings from the ECHR, as is Turkey. Its totally separate from the EU and run by the entirely separate Council of Europe of which even Russia is a member.
The EU Court is the ECJ or “European Court of Justice”.
I repeat the ECHR is not an institution of the European Union. Judgements of the European Court of Human Rights should not be referred to as EU decisions and they are not subject to EU law.
You are agreeing with an entirely erroneous statement. He has conflated a court which is entirely independent of the EU with the EU.
Here is the reality of the situation:
**Can the EU Require Member States to Open Marriage to Same-Sex Couples?
The answer is simple and it is ‘no’**, at least as things stand at the moment. In its judgment in Römer, the Court stressed that ‘as European Union law stands at present, legislation on the marital status of persons falls within the competence of the Member States’. Moreover, the drafters of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights seemed to share the same view, when in the Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it was pointed out that the Charter Article providing the right to marry (Article 9) ‘neither prohibits nor imposes the granting of the status of marriage to unions between people of the same sex’.
Because matters that fall within the ambit of family law are (usually) matters for which there is no European consensus and for which it is believed that each Member State should be left alone to make its own choices, family law is an area in which the EU has no competence to legislate. Thus, it is the Member States that can decide in situations that fall within their jurisdiction, who can marry whom, the requirements for divorce, adoption issues, the regulation of assisted reproduction, and any other issues falling within the ambit of family law. The legal recognition of same-sex relationships is no exception to this, and, hence, it is up to each Member State to decide whether it will allow in its territory two persons of the same sex to marry. This has resulted in an EU which is divided between the (mostly northern and western) Member States which have opened marriage to same-sex couples,* and the (mostly central and eastern) Member States which have not,[ii] with some Member States having a constitutional ban on opening marriage to same-sex couples.[iii]*
The same holds true for abortion:
[quote]A Protocol is a legally binding instrument that is enforceable in a court of law, including the European Court of Justice.** The wording of this Protocol clearly ensures that in any case of possible conflict between EU law and Maltese law or jurisprudence on the issue of abortion, Maltese law will prevail**
. The text of the Protocol is the following:
“**Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in the territory of Malta of national legislation relating to abortion.”
"Abortion is illegal in Malta and punishable at law under Section 241-243A of the Criminal Code. On its part, the EU has no laws on the legalisation of abortion. Nor does it have any competence to make such laws**
I’m sick of the inaccuracies about the EU on this forum. If the criticism is factually correct I’ll be the first to admit it.
So the basic truth is this: the ECJ (EU Court) respects the right of its Member States to decide whether to accept or oppose gay marriage/civil unions and accept or oppose abortion. It recognizes that it has no right to infringe upon the competence of its Member States in any areas that fall under family law, including same-sex unions and abortion.
Pity the US Supreme Court doesn’t feel the same! And yes, I’m shamelessly taking “one-upmanship” on this one
Maybe you guys should take a leaf out of EU law!
Yeah, I know. I don’t think that’s true for the family historically, though. It’s meant many things. It will change again, and same-sex marriage as it exists nowadays isn’t really a threat to the “traditional” family.
Yes, it is. Traditional family as the West has always known it is the binding together of one man and one woman. That has literally thousands of years of precedence. Once we permanently change that configuration/definition, it becomes like any other institution – up for interpretation and up for further changes. The more changes there are, the less marriage means. We see this happening already with people no longer viewing marriage as something they SHOULD do–instead, they live together, fornicate, and even have children, all outside of marriage. It is no secret that smaller numbers of couples are getting married and I believe that is because marriage is becoming somewhat meaningless to many people. Most don’t bother with Church weddings and many are more concerned about the party/reception/honeymoon than they are about the Sacramental nature of the institution.
It really is just a matter of time before three or more consenting adults will be allowed to legally marry–there is no logical reason to prevent them now that marriage means so little and now that we have already redefined its meaning.
When you take away the sacred from something, you MUST expect fewer people to regard it as something special.
From a Catholic point of view, authentic Catholics will always know that the Sacrament is the one and only true form of marriage, yet even within the sphere of baptized Catholics, that view has dropped significantly. So, the push for legal same-sex marriage has indeed found enormous success, yet the price is the watering down (making meaningless) the institution–not sure that’s what they were after, but its too late to stop that train.
So, between same-sex marriage and all the other attacks on the family and marriage, Traditional Marriage has taken a huge blow. I’m not certain the west can ever recover the sacred things it has cast aside. I pray it can and will for nothing is impossible with God.
The family is an established fact. The relationship between fathers, mother’s and their children is part of human history from the very beginning. There are variations on the theme,but family as constituted by a relationship between a man and a woman is incontrovertibly the normative ground of human existence.
If we look at Hebrew scripture (the earliest books of which began their formation in approx. 9th century BC), we see family. It is at the forefront of the discussion. Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah and Isaac, Hannah, Elkanah and Samuel, I could go on and on. A substantial portion of the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1750 BC) deals with husbands, wives, children and inheritance. The Mahabharata (circa 800 BC) is a story of dynastic struggle between families. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (circa 850 BC) together reflect on the importance of family – especially husbands and wives – and the tragedy of infidelity. The very nature of Confucian discourse is involved in filial piety (Confucius died in 479 BC). The term “filial” means the duty expected from a son or a daughter to his or her mother and/or father. Filial = family. We cannot examine Greek drama without seeing evidence of family as a central motif, nor are the works of Shakespeare or Moliere intelligible without an understanding of family as being the ground of the dramatic discussion. The stories of North American Indians, Australian aboriginal people, the nomads of the steppes, and denizens of the deepest forests, are always stories about family. It is hogwash to suggest family isn’t an essential aspect of human history. We can look for exceptions to the rule, but in the end, that’s all they are, exceptions. It is pretentious to place homosexual relationships on a par with male/female families as understood for millennia by people across the planet as being the very basis of what constitutes the “traditional” family.